Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

RUNNING HEAD: A Critique on Wider Reading for Better Reading

Critique on Wider Reading for Better

Reading
By Prof. Jonathan Acua Solano
Friday, May 8, 2015
Twitter: @jonacuso
Post 168

Can a course in which students decide what they want to read from a series of
proposed books already chosen by a tutor be a better and more motivating one for them?
Can the creation of a reading community rather than a lecturing class prompt individuals
to read more and find enjoyment in their readings? For Brumfit (1986), the great value of
the [literature] course [like this] lay in establishing what might be called a reading
community, a group of individuals, whom guided by their instructor, experience literature
with their life experiences, the understanding of a theme, and comparing writers.
What Brumfit (1986) proposes is a course which is not designed to follow a set
books approach to teaching literature. Brumfit intends to develop with students an
attitude to works of literature (1986) that can help learners to better comprehend
literature and find enjoyment in the choice of books they make. What Brumfit intends to
achieve is finding a method that in the eyes of McKay (1986) focuses its importance on
the enjoyment attained [by the reader] by interacting with texts in aesthetic reading. For
Brumfit (1986), our response to literature is part of our response to history, to ethics, to
politics, to understanding what we are and what other people are.

Prof. Jonathan Acua Solano

A Critique on A Critique on Wider Reading for Better Reading

The problem with Brumfits proposal, though he admits they


cannot say whether it worked (1986) or not, is the fact that he never
contextualized this approach in an EFL/ESL context where students
lack the necessary vocabulary to embark in this reading odyssey. As
McKay (1986) insists, To understand and appreciate any work
written in English demands far greater command of vocabulary than 2,000 words, and
an ability to tolerate and resolve uncertainty for oneself. In other words, depending on
the level where this method can be applied, learners may not be fit for choosing books to
read from already prepared lists that do include certain stories that can be rather difficult.

Though the study presented by Brumfit is not well-contextualized in terms of the


kind of students who were used in this study, it is worthwhile paying attention to it. After
students engaged themselves in constant in-class discussion, they were better fit for their
writing tasks and were able to produce creative writings based on the things being
explored. The adaptability in teaching is exceptional due to course needs in planning as
learners suggest and require assistance. And of course, it cannot be rule out the fact that
if a group of students become a reading community able to explore the interplay of
Imaginary objects with a Symbolic code in a Real context as proposed by Lacan (Bruss,
1981).

Brumfit, C. (1986). Wider Reading for Better Reading: An alternative approach to


teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter.
Oxford: OUP

Prof. Jonathan Acua Solano

A Critique on A Critique on Wider Reading for Better Reading

Bruss, N. (1981), Lacan & Literature. The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring
1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on 2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121
McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching.
Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Prof. Jonathan Acua Solano